The Trouble with Squares

I enjoyed Jef Costello’s recent review of my book, and it inspired me to elaborate a little about why I wrote The Way of Men, and how I think it could be useful.

Last month, I learned how to braise beef.

If you’re in a hurry, braising a nice cut of meat takes about five and a half hours. It’s better if you put the braising liquid somewhere cold overnight to let the fat separate from the broth.

The ingredients are simple: some carrots, onions, salt, and pepper. After the first hour and a half, you add some stock or some wine, along with some fresh herbs. You simmer it for a few hours, dump the carrots and onions, and degrease the liquid. Reduce the braising liquid by about half, then cook the beef in it for another hour and a half — flipping and basting it along the way. The natural sugars in the liquid caramelize on the beef and give it a sweet, crispy crust that complements the tender, slow-roasted meat.

The result is a rich, complex flavor that people will drop $20 a plate for at fine restaurants.

Once I got the process down, I started braising everything and varying the ingredients. I was coming home at two in the afternoon and chopping vegetables for dinner at eight — sometimes just for myself.

Braising meat isn’t brain surgery, but I wouldn’t have figured out the process on my own. It’s a technique that was the result of experimentation over time, passed along and refined through the generations until there was some kind of general consensus as to what worked and what didn’t. It’s a civilizational sweet spot, a golden mean, a culinary culmination of technology and tradition.

The thing is, I really don’t need to eat braised meat. It’s a refined luxury. It’s a luxury I can afford because I’m not hungry. I can wait five and a half hours for dinner.

What my body wants—what it needs—is animal protein and fat (and amino acids, iron, vitamins, and a bunch of other stuff).

Without that protein and fat, I’m left sitting with carrots, onions, a cookbook, and an empty stomach.

If I’m hungry and you offer me a burger, I’ll be happy to take it. I might even eat it raw.

Most people aren’t going to spend five and a half hours making dinner, but they’ve had the taste of good food — high food — so they try to simulate the flavor by cutting corners to get something that isn’t quite as good, but “good enough.” There are all kinds of pre-made dinners and commercial gravies with additives and fillers to replicate the thick sauce that you can make with simple ingredients and a little time. In fast food, the sauce overcomes the meat, and the meat is often of low quality.

Here’s your pink slime and ketchup, sir. Would you like fries with that?

When I was writing The Way of Men, I was looking for the protein and fat in a pink slime and ketchup culture. I wasn’t looking for braising recipes. I wasn’t looking for high manhood or refined manhood. I wasn’t looking for simulations of masculinity that were “good enough.” I was looking for the most basic components of masculinity. I wanted to figure out what men really want, what they really need.

I think most men are starving.

When people write about fixing what’s wrong with men today, they are handing guys a dollop of pink slime and telling them how to braise it.

What good is talk of temperance to boys who have been coddled all their lives, who have never been in a fight, whose thumos has been checked at every opportunity, who have been medicated just for being male?

I shake my head when I see people tell young men that they should be secure about their masculinity. How could they be? How can untested men learn to trust themselves? How can guys who are rarely allowed to form male groups without a female interloper or chaperone get a sense of what kind of men they are? Who is going to teach them to be men?

Single moms? Guidance counselors? TV?

The big problem with the West is that we try to sell the virtues of an advanced patriarchy to men living in a declining matriarchy. It’s no wonder they aren’t buying. Honor codes and ethical systems that kept our ancestors from lopping each others’ heads off in anger seem completely absurd in a world where boys get suspended for bringing two inch plastic toy guns to school. Teaching chivalry to boys is hilarious when the girls have more money than they do, and have already been ass-banged by the basketball team.

The manly excellences teach boys to moderate their passions before they gain too much power and become dangerous. Teaching boys to be good men is teaching self-mastery. It’s part of the civilizing process. Teaching boys to be good men and offering them no power, ever, is teaching self-denial without end. It’s obedience training. It’s what you do with pets who will always be dependent, who will never run free, who learn to shake hands for Beggin’ Strips®.

Impotent etiquette and failing moral codes remind me of the John Waters film Cry-Baby. Set in the 1950s, its plot revolves around a conflict between the uptight “Squares” and the rock n’roll white trash “Drapes.” The Squares are big snobs, but all they have to brag about is inherited social status, their quaint, inoffensive pop culture (they sing “Sh-Boom” in the movie), and superior etiquette. The Drapes are wild, tough, and although they’re a little dumb, they don’t take shit from anyone.

Baldwin, the leader of the Squares, wears nice sweaters and follows some grandma around. His girl feels herself drawn to adventure and the virility of Baltimore bad boy, “Cry-Baby” Walker. When Cry-Baby challenges Baldwin to a chicken race at the film’s climax, he tells the crowd he’s going to sing, “Something hill-billy . . . something colored!” Prissy Baldwin is horrified, but agrees to the race to defend his vestigial honor. In the end, he is proved a chicken, and the girl runs away with her “High School Hellcat.”

Recently, a few bloggers noticed that white men seemed to be less relevant in pop music, but the “wigger” phenomenon is old news. Young white men have been trying to imitate black men for decades.

Why?

Because black men run wild and, like the Drapes, they don’t seem to take shit from anyone. A huge percentage of them may be in jail, but they seem to be free in all of the ways that white men are not. White men ask women for permission, black men tell bitches “who run it.” It may be half a pose, but it’s effective. Delicate, androgynous white men like Coldplay croon in castrati falsetto about their feelings while black men tell us with authority — and at least an octave lower — how they roll and what they gonna do. The numbers may say different, but when it comes to appearances (in the words of Charlie Sheen) black men look like they’re #winning.

Young men want to be winning. They want to show that they’re strong and unafraid. They want to look like they have everything under control. They want to show that they are not the kind of men who get pushed around.

White men and black men may be different, but they’re not that different. In fact, I like white men too much to suggest for a moment that they couldn’t be equally capable of ruthlessness and savagery if push came to shove.

Isn’t it common knowledge that we’re all ruthless, jack-booted bastards waiting step on the neck of any brotha who tries to come up?

If all the West has to offer them is history, old culture, etiquette, and an inherited sense of superiority—then men will look elsewhere. That’s not enough. Men will look for the group that seems to be winning. They will look for a group that makes them feel strong, unafraid, and capable. They will look for men who are admired by women and feared by men, and they will imitate those men.

When most men write about masculinity, they write about “man in the ideal.” I understand the appeal, but I want to understand man as he is. I believe that if you truly understand man as he is, you’ll have a more realistic vision of all that he can become. The fatal error of the “progressive” American mainstream is that it lies about who man is. The progressive vision of the future is based on a lie about the present.

A better way is to take a cold, hard, unromantic look at the nature of men and build a future that both satisfies their natural appetites and offers an aspirational ideal—a way to be a better man.

I see The Way of Men as a guide for any movement that is willing to be realistic about who men are, and wants to attract the energy and strength of the kind of young men who will ultimately determine its success or failure.

If you want men on your side, you have to appeal to their most basic needs and wants. You need to give them enough protein to survive. Civilized virtues are for the strong and the settled, not for men facing existential threat.

Aristotelian excellences are not for the powerless, starving, untested men treading water as their dying matriarchy sinks into the ocean.

To win the hearts of men, you need to offer them opportunities to show that they are Strong, Courageous, and Competent. You have to give them Honor.

And whatever you do, don’t be the Squares.

Related

Related

If you enjoyed this piece, and wish to encourage more like it, give a tip through Paypal. You can earmark your tip directly to the author or translator, or you can put it in a general fund. (Be sure to specify which in the "Add special instructions to seller" box at Paypal.)

27 Comments

You made me literally go “HA! That’s a good one!” when I read this: “The big problem with the West is that we try to sell the virtues of an advanced patriarchy to men living in a declining matriarchy.”

I’ve read a lot of your essays, and I will definitively be purchasing your book once it is printed. I just had an (to me, at least) intriguing question pop up in my mind, considering the subjects you often write about: have you ever tried reading Julius Evola’s “Eros and the Mysteries of Love: The Metaphysics of Sex”? Available at Arktos, Amazon and whatnot. Heavily inspired by Bachofen and Weininger, among others, it would be very interesting to read a review of it by your pen, why not on Counter-Currents, for example? I for one would love to read it, at least.

Negro males are artificially made attractive to White women because of the Jewish media’s constant portrayal of the virile, intelligent negro lording it over the weak, impotent White man. After several decades of Jewish brainwashing, Most young women and many young men seem to have swallowed that crap. The Jewish Lie Factory must be dismantled before we can hope to restore masculinity, honor, and courage to our future Aryan Warriors.

The problem seems to me that many characteristics that have made white civilization superior ARE rather genteel. They have made for the disciplined, homogeneous societies that AS A WHOLE were able to rule the world, through disciplined armies, the rule of law, flourishing economies based on trust, room for the arts etc.

I love white civilization. What is the use of our battle if it would result in a world of white street gangs?

How to cultivate the white fighting spirit without destroying what we are fighting for?

I think the natural answer for whites lies in discipline, the -mostly- free acceptance of rules. And more specifically: play.

The mock wars of competitive sports give the opportunity to build strength and honour without wrecking civilization. The great historian Huizinga even maintained in “Homo Ludens” that the whole of civilization is in fact produced and maintained through -serious- play.

With play I do not mean posturing. The contest and the hardships are very real. The play just defines the borders of the battle, so that the victors still have a 21st century home to return to and not a cave.

Posturing can be very successful in the short run. Many “Pick Up Artists”, and in fact many blacks prove that every day. As Donovan writes: “When it comes to appearances (in the words of Charlie Sheen) black men look like they’re winning.”. But blacks have minimal real power. And you cannot build a civilization on appearances.

An indirect form of posturing is when the white fighting spirit is driven underground and expresses itself in a fascination with rape porn and SS-atrocities. In reaction to the demonization of white aggression, it seems to say: “You tell us we are demons? Then demons we shall be!”

But this is also quite ineffective of course, especially because the demonization is de facto accepted. The only solution is to counter the liberal demonization of the white fighting spirit. The hero cult of ancient Greece or NS-Germany may be a source of inspiration here.

My suggestion is further that whites should participate in all-male competitive sports and take these very seriously, consciously cultivating honour and strength.

And I think we should keep in mind that there is no honour without power (however defined). There can be no honour when you are weak. Weakness might not be dishonourable, if it is not of your own doing. But it is not honourable either.

The gentility comes later – after victory. And on a personal level, after a young man has found his power. Is it a coincidence that the root of virtue and virility are the same? Read this wonderful quote by John Adams: I study politics and war so that my son can study philosophy and mathematics and so his children can study the arts. For the exact quote:

I’m not sure the perspective of the “ideal” man vs. the “actual” man works. Precisely because in our decadent age, men no longer desire masculinity in anything resembling a traditional sense. I would venture to say that the majority of men no longer want to demonstrate strength, courage or honor, and would perhaps even argue that seeking such virtues would be a sign of chauvinism. In other words, I don’t think the vast majority of White men want anything to do with what you (and in someways I) would categorize as “actual” masculinity.

So what does that mean? Do we throw in the towel and run for the hills? No, we do indeed need to reaffirm manly virtue. Yet the question we must ask is, what does that mean to the modern man of the west. Does it some how mean we need to “go thug” and “rage against the machine”? I don’t think so. Reaffirming masculinity means reaffirming all that is has come to mean in the West, if for no other reason than it is simply what we know.

If you want to see some surviving bastions of Manhood left in America, you don’t need to look at the Black man. You would be better served heading south and looking at the man who is a father of four, and is the physical and spiritual leader of his house hold. The man who wouldn’t have a second thought about grabbing his rifle and killing a man who threatened his land or his kin.

There is a difference between the “masculinity” of the black man that manifests itself in senseless violence and arbitrary rage that has no purpose other than destruction…and the masculinity of traditional Europe which was ultimately driven by honor and the desire to act as an arbiter of justice.

I think it could be argued that appealing to a mans sense of nobility and honor would be just as effective as appealing to mans desire to kick some ass and tell some “bitches” “who run it”.

I say all of this just to point out….there is a very real notion of masculinity that revolves around a specific idea of honor that has taken root amongst people of European descent. Saying we need to abandon this “developed” concept of masulinity for one more primal, may be akin telling the old man that he needs to start acting young again in order to feel better. Then, the old man goes out and tries to run a twenty six mile marathon and immediately keels over and dies.

The prescription here may be not to go “primitive”…but to reaffirm the manly values of our ancestors who defined masculinity by ones ability to live up to his responsibilities and duties in regards to his family, his people, his community, and his God.

Yes. Our Culture is bullshit. And young men can smell bullshit a mile away. As you imply, the answer is brotherhood and hierarchy. That’s where it begins. And you can’t have a top rung of a ladder without the first. Teaching young men to internalize their ongoing emasculation is just Cultural Maoism – or as you say, obedience training.

Obviously they all can’t smell the bullshit a mile away, and if they do, then they’re all getting used to the smell? How can you explain the prolonged and systematic pussification of the American male. Men on TV crying and carrying on like women, letting the women wear the pants and run the show, while they skulk and snivel because some 5’2 foot hag raised her voice.

The female revulsion towards weak acting males is as natural as the male propensity to like small waists and big hips. While a certain female figure demonstrates fertility, a certain male demeanor demonstrates that he is able to protect his family. If a man cannot stand up to a 110 pound woman he could probably bench press, he is demonstrating to the woman that he is completely useless when a more formidable adversary challenges them.

His actions speak clearly: “I can’t protect you. Look elsewhere.”

If our race is to continue men need to learn to become leaders of women again.

Also, lift weights. Heavy ones; compound exercises. I’d advice it to the women as well, but it should be mandatory for the men.

Baldwin does redeem himself later in movie when he leads the Nerds in a full on attack against the Drapes – in which the Drapes run for their lives. There may be some life in the White Man’s psyche yet – but He needs Leaders and structure to unleash it. Gangs the word.

The fact that Black hip hop stars and haughty, irreverent Pick Up Artists are revered rather than ridiculed in our society shows just how quickly ketchup and pink slime adulterate both high quality and low quality “protein” in our society. While Jack Donovan is correct in arguing that nothing positive can come from attempts to “refine” a character that is fundamentally weak and effeminate, it’s also true that one also can’t do much with meat that’s been contaminated with slime.

A revival movement must draw a clear distinction between the contaminated masculinity of hip-hoppers and PUAs, and the masculinity possessed by self-disciplined, honorable men. The latter also have a wild, tough side, but unlike the former they use their irreverence in service of their efforts to advance, build, and ennoble the traditions of the past. Their irreverence is directed at the sick joke that modern society has become, and the politically-correct lies upon which it is based.

Maybe this is a bit of Jungian synchronicity, but I read the comments the same time that I found this article, From Christianity to Paganism: The New Middle Ages and the Values of ‘Medieval’ Masculinity. I am just skimming through it, but some interesting things are said.

start quote
“He elaborated further on his concept of Manliness in The Manliness of Christ. Here he defined manliness as tenderness and thoughtfulness for others, readiness to bear pain and even death, unswerving loyalty to truth, subordination of the human will to a sense of duty. In the hands of Kingsley and Hughes Christian concepts of morality and service became fused with chivalry. Hughes gave us the clue when he talked of muscular Christians embracing ‘the old chivalrous and Christian belief’. Hughes and Kingsley were steeped in chivalry. Preaching before Queen Victoria, Kingsley declared: ‘The age of chivalry is never past so long as there is a wrong left unredressed on earth or a man or woman left to say: I will redress that wrong or spend my life in the attempt’ (Girouard, 1981, p.130). Hughes and Kingsley both wrote bestselling books which preached the same gospel. In Tom Brown’s Schooldays, Hughes has Tom’s father say: ‘If he’ll only turn out a brave, helpful, truthtelling Englishman and a gentleman and a Christian, that’s all I want’. In Westward Ho, Kingsley’s hero Amyas Leigh declares it to be ‘the finest thing in the world to be a gentleman’. In the 19th century, chivalry was everywhere: enshrined in the public school code, in the belief systems of youth movements, in popular fiction. The cumulative effect of exposure through popular culture to an image of manliness compounded of chivalry, Christianity and the public school code can be seen on the outbreak of the Great War.”
end quote

and

start quote
“These cinematic Vikings of the late 1950s and 1960s are the precursors of the New Barbarians of contemporary culture, whose imagery is of Dark Age paganism and violence. The two elements are inseparably linked. Rock music with its remorseless, hypnotic beat and its appeal to sex and violence is essentially pagan and sensual, as opposed to pre-beat popular music which was romantic, chivalric and sentimental. Christopher Frayling in his excellent book Strange Landscape has listed the heavy metal rock bands of the past 20 years who evoke a melange of largely though not exclusively pagan Celtic, Viking, Gothic and Tolkienesque myth and imagery: Angelwitch, Apocalypse, Apocrypha, Armageddon, Atilla, Avalon, Battle Axe, Black Sabbath, Candlemass, Cirith Ungol, Four Horsemen, Hallow’s Eve, Helmet, Heretic, Icon, Iron Maiden, Mordred, Nazareth, Omen, Ostrogoth, Pandemonium, Pestilence, Possessed, Raven, Satan, Saxon, Shadow King, Shire, Sieges, Skull, Steel Forest, Stormwitch, Sword, Talisman, Voivod, Watchtower and Wolfsbane. (Frayling, 1995, p.20). The common factor is violence, destruction, noise and darkness.

This rock music ethos and imagery has had its cinematic equivalents, who entered the mainstream of popular cultural mythology: Conan the Barbarian, Mad Max and Rambo. Perhaps the most emblematic of the barbarian heroes of cinema, overlapping with pulp fiction and comic strip, is Conan the Barbarian. Conan was the creation of the Texan writer Robert E. Howard, and first appeared in pulp magazines in the 1930s. Howard was an imaginative, disturbed figure who committed suicide at the age of 30 in 1936 when he learned that his mother was dying. He had identified totally with barbarians and was, as his biographer L. Sprague De Camp comments ‘under the spell of the Aryanist doctrine which identified the Aryans with the tall, blond, blue-eyed Nordic racial type’ (De Camp, 1975, p.23), and although Conan was dark, the model is the Nietzschean superman with all its Fascist overtones.”
end quote

Granted that original Christianity was a slave religion, there was a correction during the Middle Ages as stated by Evola, but there seems to be more of this primordial masculinity within Indo-European paganism, that is not seen in Christianity. I think the more primordial manliness that is pagan is too edgy and wild for the Christian, who wants it to be more refined and civilized.

The question is, given the cultural conditions of the 21st century, which ideal will be more successful.

Also, a second point.

Not everything about the pickup artists is entirely bad. I think the problem is when they use deceipt or flat our lies. For example, making up stories that show they are leaders of men, protectors of loved ones, and pre-selected by women. This should be seen as a lack of Honor, since they have to lie about qualities that they don’t have.

It is not bad if it is a strategy. Good strategy could be seen as Mastery. There is nothing wrong with knowing what traits are good from the perspective of sexual selection, and structure the conversation with an attractive girl with the intent to signal those characteristics. Take this as a hypothetical, assume a muscular male with an interesting tattoo that has deep meaning. If he structures the conversation correctly, he can signal verbal intelligence, creativity, and dominance. All which have been sexually selected for in males by females. Again, there is nothing wrong with a strategy, unless you disagree with the virtue of mastery listed in the article.

We have to be very careful when talking of “refined” masculinity, since in some cases that merely describes a kind of fraud, wherein men are sold fundamentally false and self-destructive values by presenting them as masculine in a deeper or higher sense. And if men find that living by these values make them miserable, they are told simply to “man up.”

In my book, most religious forms of asceticism fall under this description. Puny, sickly men motivated by resentment sell healthy men on the idea that true manliness lies in imitating puny, sickly men. And if that requires a struggle against nature, which makes one miserable, that is twisted into proof of the fundamental correctness and sublimity of the outlook.

I know, the “refined” comment about Christianity was a dig, but an honest one. In an “ascending patriarchy” we need to take to heart this comment about Socrates by Nietzsche.

“..we cannot help viewing Socrates as the vortex and turning point of Western civilization. For if we imagine that immense store of energy used, not for the purpose of knowledge, but for the practical, egotistical ends of individuals and nations, we may readily see the consequence: universal wars of extermination and constant migrations of peoples would have weakened man’s instinctive zest for life to such an extent that, suicide having become a matter of course, duty might have commanded the son to kill his parents, the friend his friend, as among the Fiji islanders. We know that such wholesale slaughter prevails wherever art in some form or other — especially as religion or science — has not served as antidote to barbarism.”

The manly instincts are sublimated to more creative and cultural pursuits when the conditions allow. The reality of the situation is much different now, the young male needs to read these ideas even in books like Might is Right, since the polemical style might help him attain basic masculine virtues. This is where paganism has an edge, we need ideals like Odin, Thor, Perun, etc., not Jesus.

I would agree that from the perspective of what is necessary today, these four virtues are essential. You could also argue that “alpha males” groom, and that studies back up the position that higher status males have better grooming standards and good style and choice in clothing, but that is not the problem today in males.

This brings up two questions that I have for Jack

1) Do you consider these to be the primal masculine virtues, or just the specific primal masculine virtues that will help the person in this society?

2) What is your view on “male display”? There are pictures of old barbarian warriors with arm torcs, neck torcs, and other ornamentation for the purpose of display. We can see what is going on, they are ornamenting areas of high sexual dimorphism (arm, neck) with the intent to signal dominance.

The reason that I ask the second question is because I think you are critical of this, correct me if I am wrong. I can see a possible problem with this as compared to ancient society. In ancient society the jewelry was won by those of rank, a chieftain’s torc is for a chieftain. So it could be seen that the item signals no prestige or dominance and thus is cheap. A possible rebuttal could be that in this society we have returned to a more primal aspect when dealing with this, one that specifically deals with sexual dimorphism. “If you wear a neck torc, then you must have a wrestler’s neck”, and “if you wear an arm torc, then you must have big arms”. This way the signal is still “honest”, though from a biological, and not cultural way.

Good to see so many high-quality comments. I don’t have time to respond to everything in-depth, but I am glad to see I provided some food for thought. Jaego Scorzne and Michael Polignano seem to have done a good job of clarifying and elaborating on my ideas.

If all the West has to offer them is history, old culture, etiquette, and an inherited sense of superiority—then men will look elsewhere. That’s not enough. Men will look for the group that seems to be winning. They will look for a group that makes them feel strong, unafraid, and capable. They will look for men who are admired by women and feared by men, and they will imitate those men.

Everyone loves a winner. Is this news? Most people would rather be on the winning side even if the winning side is waging a war of slow genocide against their own people. I’m not sure that’s the essence of masculinity. In fact it’s more of a feminine trait.

I don’t see how we offer these people the sense that they’re on the winning side, since we’re obviously not the winning side at the moment, and have no way that I can see of even plausibly pretending that we are. We are making steady progress getting people on our side via the internet, and can maybe claim that the future is ours, but at present the jews remain confidently in control while we are posting anonymously online and playing along with the system in real life for fear of the consequences.

What we need are not fairweather fans who love winning, but people who are willing to take a stance on principle even if it looks like it’s losing. The “fight in the shade” mentality is what’s required.

I don’t agree. I think White squareness is wonderful if it’s done right, with dynastic thinking, an adequate number of boys, and lots of good military training.

I think the English royal family is a pretty good example of how you do that right. Her Royal Highness is well supplied with male relatives who’ve been trained and tested in a variety of forms of combat. I don’t think Her Majesty has done well for the White people of her kingdoms at all, with her anti-racist bias, and that will count greatly to the detriment of her genetic interests in the long run, but in the short to medium term and taking only a narrow view of what’s good for her she’s done well.

Having enough kids solves a lot of problems if you keep them away from television and home-school them. (Don’t turn them over to the loser indoctrination camps that modern schools have become.)

Inverted pyramids (with many grandparents, few grandchildren) lead to problems.
1. Diminished relatedness among young White males. Go back through our history and legends, and take out every reference to courage and loyalty implicitly cemented by brotherhood or blood relations, and see what that leaves.
2. Too many White parents and professionals supervising the heck out of too few kids, with excessive effect in taking the mischief out of those few and unrelated kids.
3. A clear if not explicitly state priority on diversions, luxury goods and the avoidance of difficulty in life over the creation of new life. A “family” that can barely move around the house for all the expensive furniture and electronics but has one (1) boy has basically said “these goodies are more precious to us than more like you”.
4. Strong domination of informal White culture by the habits and values of the trouble-shy and relative elderly. Because of inverted pyramid families, White culture is about oldies and timidity, compared to non-White cultures with adequate numbers of children, even before you discuss other issues like the explicit construction of masculinity.

Elderly Whites also have an incentive for their own feeble comfort to leech the strength out of young Whites, even though this will leave their progeny at a great disadvantage compared to those who have not been held back and denatured. That’s always been true. (Princes that don’t work out because their parents, often power-hungry mothers, stopped them from getting a military education or making anything of themselves are a great cliché of history.) What’s new is that the natural counter-balance to this vice of the old is partly suppressed by anti-racism. The natural counter-balance to the tendency of the old to make life easy on themselves at the cost of weakening the young, the drive to dynasty, the will to plan out a future extending beyond any foreseeable end, is frustrated for most in a state that is officially and culturally committed to demographic influx, forced integration and (not officially but inevitably) to White flight as an ongoing if not permanent conditions. The old cannot plan for the young to be strong young lions to hold their familiar lands for all time. It’s against the law, it’s prohibited by overwhelming military and police power, and the very thought is racist.

The young are just very expensive pets in expensive houses, and what do we do with kittens that live in expensive houses with expensive furniture? We de-claw them.

Is it a coincidence that J.D. stands for both Jack Donovan and juvenile delinquent?

Despite my appreciation for Jack’s work, I must say the comment about the falsetto voice is a real wrong note, Daddy-O. Falsetto has been a feature of “black” music since Africa, and was heavily featured in both White and negro music of the 50s-60s. Admittedly, it may explain how performers from Little Richard to Michael Jackson managed to pass, but that’s another issue.

Both in Africa and in Baroque opera, the falsetto [or castrato, or counter-tenor] was highly prized and had no connotations of ‘faggotry.” In fact, quite the opposite: among the tribes, the falsetto part was a privilege, to be earned with great deeds, while Handel, etc. used counter-tenors for heroic parts, such as Julius Caesar and Moses.

Admittedly, it plays hardly any role in rap/hiphop, but that’s exactly part of the ‘no homo’ thuggishness of the ‘music’. The negro is ever more idolized in pop culture precisely for his sub-human, animalistic nature, which therefore is constantly being dialed up as more and more “authentic.”

As an interesting sidelight, notice how negroes who don’t buy into The Man’s system, and therefore don’t need to act like they’re “supposed to”, such as Malcolm X and the Nation of Islam, dress nicely, bow ties and all, treat women with respect, and sing calypso in falsetto [Minister Farakhan]. “Fruit” of Islam indeed!

Same situation: next you’ll tell me that if I add spandex pants and long hair to my falsetto, the girls will run away. Tell that to Robert Plant, David Lee Roth or Axel Rose.

The disparagement of all these things, which “coincidentally” typify proud, rebellious White Youth, in favor of a fake “manliness” that takes its asymptotic ideal in the skin-headed [sorry, Jack and Jef!] thug, province of the negro, is a massive and all too successful effort at what Yockey would call “culture distortion.” And we all know cui bono…

All this, and much else, is discussed in my forthcoming CC book, The Homo and the Negro.

What you say about the castrati/counter-tenors of the Baroque period is correct. But let’s be fair. Back in those days, men wore long wigs, frills on their shirts, and high-heeled shoes too. None of which would pass as acceptable masculine attire today.

Nevertheless, it is not really about the tessitura which today’s pop singers employ as much as it is about the voce finta quality of the singing. The castrati/counter-tenors of the past, as well as the lead vocal in the isicathamic music of Africa employ fully-supported tone production that is harmonically rich, and capable of filling an opera house, or being heard across throughout a village. Neither can be said of the kind of vocal production of many pop singers. Their vocal production is light, airy, and under-supported. Coldplay provides an example of what I’m talking about here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JI-o25K6B-E&ob=av2n

P.S. Please let me know when your book becomes available. The topic is near and dear to me.

2 Trackbacks

[…] at Counter-Currents Publishing, “The Trouble with Squares.” It’s a response to an earlier Counter-Currents piece by Jack Donovan promoting his new book The Way of Men (my reviews of both that and Nowicki’s new book Under […]